Greek Orators 1: Antiphon & Lysias

287 Pages·1985·5.307 MB·English

by  M. Edwards, Stephen Usher

GREEK ORATORS - I
Antiphon & Lysias
TRANSLATED WITH COMMENTARY AND NOTES BY
M. Edwards ἃ 5. Usher
GREEK ORATORS- I
Antiphon & Lysias
TRANSLATED WITH COMMENTARY AND NOTES BY
M. Edwards ἃ 959. Usher
© M.Edwards ὃ 5. Usher 1985. All rights reserved. No part of
this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form by any means without the prior
written permission of the publishers.
U.K. ISBN 0 85668 246 2 cloth
ISBN 0 85668 247 0 limp
U.S.A. ISBN 0 86516 088 0 cloth
ISBN 0 86516 063 5 /imp
Published in England by ARIS & PHILLIPS LTD, Warminster,
Wiltshire, England.
Published in the U.S.A. by BOLCHAZY-CARDUCCI PUBLISHERS,
Chicago, Illinois,
Printed in England by ARIS & PHILLIPS LTD, Warminster,
Wiltshire, England.
CONTENTS
Preface
Abbreviations
General Introduction
Select Bibliography
The Texts: Antiphon
Lysias
Antiphon Introduction
On the Murder of Herodes
Commentary
Lysias Introduction
The Killing of Eratosthenes
Against Theomnestus
Against Eratosthenes
For Mantitheus
Against the Corn-dealers
For the Invalid
Defence Against a Charge of
Subverting the Democracy
Commentary
Index
PREFACE
This contribution to the expanding series of Aris & Phillips
Classical Texts follows the general lines of earlier volumes. The
Antiphontean part of the book is the work of Michael Edwards, while
Stephen Usher wrote the Lysianic part and the General Introduction.
We wish to thank the proprietors of Teubner Verlag, Stuttgart and of
the Clarendon Press, Oxford for permission to use their texts of
Antiphon and Lysias (respectively) as the bases for ours. Thanks are
also due to Professor Douglas MacDowell, from whose published work
and private discussion and correspondence we have benefited
greatly; and to Professor Malcolm Willcock, whose idea this volume
was.
ABBREVIATIONS
(1) Ancient Authors
Aes. Aeschines
Aeschyl. Aeschylus
Ammian. Marc. Ammianus Marcellinus
And. Andocides
Ant. Antiphon
Ar. Aristophanes
Arist. Aristotle
Apollod, Apollodorus
Callim, Callimachus
Cic, Cicero
Democr. Democritus
Dem. Demosthenes
Dinarch. Dinarchus
Diod. Diodorus Siculus
Diog.Laert, Diogenes Laertius
D.H, Dionysius of Halicarnassus
Epicharm. Epicharmus
Eupol. Eupolis
Eur. Euripides
Gorg. Gorgias
Hermog,. Hermogenes
Hat. Herodotus
Hes. Hesiod
Hesych. Hesychius
Hippoc. Hippocrates
Hom. Homer
Hor. Horace
Is. Isaeus
Isoc. Isocrates
Lyc. Lycurgus
Lys. Lysias
Pi. Pindar
Pl. Plato
Plut. Plutarch
Quint. Quintilian
Sext.Emp. Sextus Empiricus
Soph. Sophocles
Steph.Byz. Stephanus Byzantinus
Theog. Theognis
Theophrast. Theophrastus
Thuc. Thucydides
Xen. Xenophon
(2) Periodicals
American Journal of Philology
Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore
di Pisa
Classical Bulletin
Classical Philology
Classical Quarterly
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies
Revue des Etudes Grecques
Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
Transactions and Proceedings of the
American Philological Association
For other abbreviations see Bibliography

GENERAL INTRODUCTION
ORATORY BEFORE RHETORIC
The reader of Homer soon becomes aware of the importance of
the spoken word in his story. Many of his heroes are accomplished
orators, who earn as much respect for their eloquence as for their
martial prowess; and their speeches often mark turning-points in the
action. Observing the brilliance of Nestor, Odysseus and Agamemnon
and its effect upon their audiences, later critics of systematic
rhetoric disparaged the pioneering pretensions of its exponents by
claiming that its techniques had been evolved and refined in that
distant heroic age, so that the best speakers in the Iliad and
Odyssey exhibited, in pristine form, all the finest qualities of
persuasive oratory.’ There is even evidence for instruction? and
competition’ in eloquence in Homeric society. But it must be doubted
whether, among semi-literate people, teaching could have included
material which required close study, or indeed extended beyond
general precepts of the simplest kind. Homeric oratory appears as
spontaneous utterance, without regular plan and showing only such
intellectual subtlety as the speaker might have been expected to
deploy on the spur of the moment. The presence of formulae and
stock topics in it suggests that these may have formed part of the
teaching material: perhaps orators, like poets, learned their craft
with the aid of formulae.? However this may be, the speeches
themselves are less notable for their rational and dialectical content
than for their appeal to the emotions, particularly those of anger and
fear. This should cause no surprise, since as autocratic leaders
Odysseus and Agamemnon were not mentally conditioned to use
reasoned argument when their primary purpose was simply to make
their decisions known to their subjects and call upon them to carry
them out. Their oratory was not so much deliberative as hortatory.
But the existence of some kind of forensic oratory is attested in the
description of a scene depicting a trial for homicide on the Shield of
Achilles In this, after the contending parties have stated their
points of view, each member of a panel of elders delivers his
judgment of the case, and the one whose judgment seems the best is
awarded two talents of gold. The scene raises many interesting
questions about the administration of justice in early Greek society,
but the question which concerns the present discussion is that of
whether the elders who spoke had received any training in oratory
and/or law, or whether (as seems more likely) wisdom born of
experience was all that they needed in order to arrive at judgments
which could satisfy their younger fellow-citizens.
A search for vestiges of formal rhetoric in Hesiod is even less
rewarding, in spite of the tone and general purpose of his didactic
poetry. His description of oratory as a gift of the Muses (Theogony
80-93) which enables kings to control their people contains a
suggestion of divinely-inspired, effortless fluency rather than
training. In the Works and Days the nearest approach to an oratorical
manner is found in the passages addressed directly to his brother
Perses (213ff,286ff), but even here the tone is hortatory, very much
in the direct style of the Homeric speeches.
Later literature provides two trial scenes. The first, the Hymn
to Hermes, belongs perhaps to the sixth century, and describes a
dispute between Apollo and Hermes in which the latter employs
argument from probability and is also accused of bribing a witness.
But the speeches show no clear partition. The second is the trial
scene in Aeschylus Eumenides, which is late enough to have come
under the influence of early rhetorical teaching, and does not
therefore properly belong to a survey of oratory before that teaching
became available.
RHETORIC IN THE FIFTH CENTURY
It was not until political conditions were favourable that rhetoric
flourished at all levels of society. Neither monarchy nor oligarchy
afforded these conditions. It was only when all citizens enjoyed
sovereign power to decide on political and judicial issues that the art
of persuasion was called upon to marshal all its resources. Leaders in
a democracy were, by definition, obliged to persuade the people to
adopt their policies. In Athens, democracy entered the most positive
phase of its development early in the fifth century, at the time of the
Persian Wars (491-479 B.C.) During this time some crucial decisions
were made by the Popular Assembly, and the man who guided them in
these decisions was Themistocles. He persuaded the Athenians to
enlarge their fleet before Xerxes' great invasion,” and so prepared
them for the naval victory at Salamis. It is of interest to learn from
biographical sources that Themistocles' powers of mass persuasion
were not acquired without instruction, He is said to have received
this from an otherwise unknown teacher named Mnesiphilus, who is
described as a student of sophia (wisdom applied to practical
matters).2 In the accounts of Herodotus and Plutarch he appears as
Themistocles' mentor in all aspects of his political career, which must
have included what he said as well as what he did? Plutarch also
describes Mnesiphilus as a forerunner of the sophists,” who differed
from him only in their greater professionalism and more formalised
teaching, which undoubtedly included the techniques of public
speaking. Finally, in his speech to the wavering Greeks on the eve of
Salamis, Themistocles is reported by Herodotus to have contrasted the
better with the worse in man's nature, and urged the Greeks to